October 24, 2013 at 9:29 pm #2476
I only recently found out what a throwdown is – it’s a cache placed by a cacher who cannot find a cache but decides to place a new cache which he/she then logs as a find – otherwise known as cheating 🙁 I’ve experienced this a couple of times early on but have always refused to accept the finds and is one of the main reasons I seldom have explicit hints or spoilers for my caches.
Yesterday I got a throwdown on my Smallacombe Bottom cache http://coord.info/GC3C80C and was forced to drive 25 miles today to remove it! If you don’t remove them immediately cachers will not know that they have not found the proper cache and will expect to log the throwdown. The CO may be happy with this, but not if it is a special cache or a particularly difficult cache to find. And in any case, it is not in anybody’s interest to have 2 caches present at GZ. I am particularly annoyed with this cache at it is a very good hide with a one third DNF rate and it now has 7 or 8 consecutive DNFs, but it IS there!
I have now asked these cachers twice to change their log but no action yet. I will delete their find log if it is left there. The logs that are there do make interesting reading 🙂October 25, 2013 at 5:41 am #2477
I felt your frustration when reading your OM log. Very annoying, I agree.October 25, 2013 at 7:00 pm #2478
A few days ago I was talking to Jane, (Hartshole Hunter) who I walk with now, she told me a chap from Mary Tavy she knows completely out of the blue said to her “I am trying to find out about geocaching, she told him she geocaches with me, anyway the reason why he wanted to know is that he was walking his dog on Gibbet Hill and found a geocache floating down the leat, I have no idea which cache this is or whether it is mine but he will be passing it on to Jane so I will have some idea then, I have had no reports of any missing on my trail, but now I am wondering if I have had a throwdown? Time will tell when I see the logbooks!October 26, 2013 at 12:26 pm #2479
Mystery solved of the floating cache it was my trail no 15 which should have been under the bridge at the end of the walk, it was signed on the 20th October and replaced by Candleford on the 23rd.
In fact the same cachers replaced no 2 as well and a note has been posted to say there are two caches on the site now, I’m not too bothered about it as they will be removed soon. I am wondering how many containers does Candleford carry? He/she obviously replaced 3 that we know of that day!October 26, 2013 at 1:02 pm #2480
I’ve just had an email from Candleford apologising for my wasted journey but not really apologising for their throwdown. As I was replying to their email Brentorboxer’s post (above) popped into my inbox so I added a copy of that to my email and suggested that they now had a few more “finds” to change to DNFs 🙂
Throwdowns are worse than just cheating – not only do they inflate the number of finds, but they cause confusion to all following cachers who have no idea what is going on and force the CO to take unnecessary action to retrieve the throwdown 🙁October 28, 2013 at 10:41 pm #2487
It looks as though this subject is being discussed by others as the Cave Trolls Lair cache (GCTDF6) was brought to my attention twice on Sunday by totally different cachers. First this very eloquent log was added to my Smallacombe Bottom cache and then a caller brought up the same subject.
Is geocaching really coming to this? Log a find at all costs! Please let us have a few more views posted here on this subject.October 29, 2013 at 8:21 am #2490
Perhaps some cachers think getting themselves to the cache site deserves and “find” and the more of you there are in your party makes it difficult for a CO to delete logs “bully boy tactics” comes to mind.October 30, 2013 at 10:51 pm #2491JaughanParticipant
This really is quite simple: a cache has an owner and only the owner or an agent appointed (in advance of a visit) by the owner has the right to interfere with the cache. Stick to that as a principle and everything else falls into place.
I know we have all replaced wet logs or cracked boxes and that is normally welcomed by all concerned but even then, we are taking a liberty.October 30, 2013 at 11:09 pm #2492
Cachers who replace damaged caches and wet logs should not be confused with those who throw down caches. The former are genuinely helping the geocaching community (and I will always welcome this on any of my caches), the latter are helping nobody but themselves and are actually damaging the whole principle of geocaching. Find and sign the bloody log – nothing else is acceptable!November 1, 2013 at 6:38 pm #2495reb10Participant
In my view the only person who should replace a cache is the cache owner, a replacement log is a different matter.
There is another kind of throwdown, a cache that is obviously missing but after quite a few DNF’s someone finds it and the only comment left when logging the find is TFTC. I suppose this could be classed as a virtual throwdown.November 6, 2013 at 2:54 am #2496LympstoneBogtrottersParticipant
Many thanks to reb10 for returning this interesting thread to some form of normality with some witty repartee!
While I agree wholeheartedly with Dave’s abhorrence of throwdowns, and sympathise with him for the inconvenience he suffered to right the wrong at Smallacombe Bottom, I feel duty bound to spring to the defence of the cachers who deposited a 35mm film pot at The Cave Trolls Lair. bishopflyer’s log clearly states ”I have contacted the CO and will change this to a smiley later on if he’s happy with that” ….Which I am presuming he must be, as her log now has a smiley next to it!!
I’m afraid I find myself disagreeing completely with Brentorboxer’s rather dramatic sweeping sentiments on the subject. ”The more in the party the more difficult it is for the CO to delete the logs”? I once had a very large volume of ”virtual discoveries” on one of my Geocoins…….It didn’t cause me any difficulty hitting my delete button repeatedly! As for ”Bully boy tactics”…………..I’ll let you defend that one to Red.Roaming, Dartmoor deliverer, Ky Devas and bishopflyer (all extremely scary, bully boys in need of a quick find fix)
There are some examples of throwdowns being LEGITIMATE! Love ’em or hate them some Power Trail CO’s positively encourage finders to replace damaged or missing pots with new ones by carrying a supply around with you!
Personally I have contacted Trail CO’s in the past prior to attempting their trails asking if they would like me to replace any missing caches. Some CO’s have agreed to this, even furnishing me with mobile phone numbers to confirm GZ’s on route. This way, a finder can also act legitimately as a surrogate CO saving the ”real” CO the inconvenience of a maintenance trip. I’ve also made lasting caching friendships doing this, and the favours are often reciprocated (and drinks swapped at the next local event!) I cast my mind back to one of the very first thread topics on this site where Dave himself was encouraging cachers visiting the Moor to co-operate and help CO’s of remote caches by undertaking essential primary maintenance on caches in trouble – I guess sometimes there is a thin line between one cachers maintenance visit and another’s ”two pot smiley”
In answer to Dave’s ”Is caching coming to this? Log finds at all costs!!”………OF COURSE IT’S NOT!
I logged THREE DNF logs on Birder Ces’s ”Whipton Village” this week in THREE DAYS! The middle of which involved not even getting out of the car as there were a group of drunk feral youths adjacent to the GZ…………..Guess I could always have lobbed a film pot at them!!!
Cache On!November 6, 2013 at 8:42 am #2497
I am surprised this subject is being dragged up yet again, I thought it had been done and dusted, most of us had moved on but seeing as my comments have been picked for criticism I feel I should reply. Like anyone else I am entitled to my opinions and I certainly do not have to explain myself to anyone!November 6, 2013 at 9:10 am #2498
Agreeing with the CO to maintain or replace a cache in advance is not the same as throwing down a cache because you cannot find it. If the practice of throwdowns stopped there would be no pressure on COs to accept a find. I agree that “bully boy tactics” (not my words) are a bit emotive but the point BB was making is perfectly valid.
I only used Cave Trolls Lair as an example as it was mentioned to me twice on the same day, but I am sure that many who had reached the cave and found the cache would be disappointed that others who had not, still claimed a find. It really does devalue their efforts.
As LB specifically mentioned the bishopflyer log I have read it again. My interpretation is that her note to the CO was not because of the throwdown, but because she had not actually gone to the cave, but waited below – but that’s a completely different discussion 🙂December 15, 2013 at 3:48 pm #2546
I’m posting in this thread, not to drag up an arguement or attack anyone in particular, but to give an alternative view.
Last week I did two medium length series by Poshrule in Dorset; Babcary Bounce and Charlton Crusade (totalling 11 miles of flat, well-kept farmland and roads). Never done this CO’s caches before, so I read the descriptions more carefully and he mentions;
“i visit the area regularly but should you find a damp/wet log or even a container missing i am more than happy for it to be replaced should you carry spares prior to my next visit.”
So I took three spare caches along and had three DNFs in the first six of the series and used them all. Clues were specific and difficulty rated low, and subsequent finders have confirmed they’ve only found mine. I DNF’d one half way around, but had no spare or idea where it could be – and luckily, for another person the same day did find it (highlighting the risk of being arrogant when deciding to throwdown!). The last one in the series of 35 wasn’t there though, but I did have another spare in the car nearby so replaced that too.
Four throwdowns in one series, and thanked by the CO later for doing so.
I do understand this is different to some of the examples mentioned on here, but I thought of this thread whilst doing it, and you know? I’m glad I did as, yes, I got smileys, but so did those following me the same day and as this CO has the most caches of anyone in the country (1,779 of them!) I don’t mind giving them a bit of help. Cost to me is a couple of quid, but I was there anyway and with specific clues and a low D – combined with a public series, I was reasonably sure they had been muggled away. Without that line on the description, I wouldn’t have replaced any caches.
So anyway, I’m rambling. No surprise there. And this is VERY different to a High-D, no-Clued example like Smallacombe Bottom and I would probably be just as miffed as him in that case – but I’m presenting a case where throwdowns /can/ be acceptable – in my opinion.December 15, 2013 at 4:07 pm #2547
I can understand that view point, but I consider it to be a very dangerous precedent. If one CO encourages it then it will spread to other caches (like mine) where the CO strongly disapproves.
Placing 1,779 caches is no excuse at all. Nobody should place more caches than they can maintain and I don’t think anybody should be allowed to place that many anyway. If every cache goes missing once a year that’s nearly 5 a day!!! Impossible to maintain.
The principles of geocaching are very clear, somebody places a cache for others to find. If you cannot find it, it’s a DNF – very, very simple. No ifs and buts – a DNF! Are cachers so desperate for every last smiley and so afraid to log a DNF 🙁December 15, 2013 at 7:55 pm #2548AnonymousInactive
There have been numerous occasions where I have carried out maintenance on caches belonging to others, replacing log books, drying out containers, or just checking that the cache is still in place. I feel that the majority of cachers are more than happy to do this. However there is one thing that I would never do regardless of the D/T rating, and that is placing a throwdown because I had not managed to find the original cache, even if the CO allows it. Surely the only course of action if you can’t find a cache is to record a DNF.
Anyone placing caches must realise that they are responsible for maintaining those caches; cache owners should not wait for other cachers to maintain their caches for them. Cache owners should also not wait for many months before taking action on needs maintenance logs.
I would not expect anyone to replace my cache containers, nor would I accept found logs if a throwdown were placed. I would hope that if a needs maintenance log was posted on any cache that I owned, that I would be able to check it out within a few weeks, if I was unable to do that then I would not hesitate in archiving the cache.
How many caches should a single person be allowed to own, is it 50 or 200 or 1779. I doubt if the reviewers or geocaching.com are that bothered, they are after all only interested in numbers.January 5, 2014 at 6:11 pm #2586
How many caches should a single person be allowed to own, is it 50 or 200 or 1779. I doubt if the reviewers or geocaching.com are that bothered, they are after all only interested in numbers.
Sorry, but that’s a bit of a silly arguement IMO – the only judgement is the ability to maintain them in a timely fashion. There’s no suggestion poshrule performs maint any less rigorously than any other CO despite having so many, and there are lots of cache owners whose caches are forcibly archived because they fail to do any maint even when they only have one or a few caches.
In my view, there should be fewer rules in geocaching, not more.March 12, 2014 at 8:46 am #2928
It took 4 of us quite a few minutes to find a throwdown on one of my caches yesterday. We knew it was there somewhere as several had logged a find on it, but it was many yards from where it should have been.
Maybe I could log a find on it 😛 !
However, it shows how easy it is to end up with duplicate caches as soon as one gets thrown down.April 1, 2014 at 8:21 pm #2955DevonirishParticipant
I read this thread with interest, as I wonder how many throwdowns we have signed over the 2 years we have been caching.
A few times I have been looking for a cache that the info says regular sized cache with room for swaps and trackables. And all we found is a 35mm film canister with a strip of paper in it.
Only last week we went around Tottiford Resevoir and one cache (Top Totty (TV8) ) , we had to do a double check as the log had not been signed since 2010 but the 25 logs on my phone where from the last 8 months. Has everyone else been signing a throwdown ,as the one we signed had the cache name and part of the bonus coordinates on the lid.
Why do people do it, we don’t find it shameful to log a DNF, it’s helpful to the CO and other cachers.June 29, 2014 at 2:36 pm #3012redvanman1971Participant
Looks like the Fox Tor cache as become the latest throwdown victim . Was going to see about taking over this one as I have a stamp that can replace the one that’s missing. 😕June 30, 2014 at 7:45 pm #3013reb10Participant
The problem with the Fox Tor cache/letterbox is that there are a number of other letterboxes nearby. We thought we found the cache back in 2011 but it turned out to be a letterbox, although it didn’t have a stamp it did have a log book dating back to before the cache was placed so it couldn’t have been the cache, so being honest cachers 😉 we logged it as a DNF.June 30, 2014 at 10:57 pm #3014
That is only part of the story. I was FTF on this cache so I have always known exactly where it should be. When I found it the Foxglove letterbox was under the same rock, but on the other side – it hadn’t been found since 1991 and was in a dreadful state, but may have caused some confusion. It did, however, have a proper stamp.
I re-visited in 2012 and took the 2 photos shown in my log. The Foxglove box was still there and still had its stamp. The cache was in pristine condition. After this, the hybrid cache then obviously got soaking wet and the stamp disappeared.
I re-visited again in 2013 and removed the saturated logbook and replaced it with a new logbook in a new clip lock box inside the ammo can. It appears that this didn’t last very long and disappeared again. Apparantly another cache has now been added. Another confusion was the familiar tftc log from Tallisman which resulted in Moor to Sea looking for the cache for another hour 👿 !
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.